Leaderboard

Hi all, Well, two years of investigating and I'm still stuck and undecided. Thank you all for bearing with me. I've worked through many of the roadblocks I've had over baptism, yet there are still a couple of issues that I'm struggling with. The first is tithing in a single-member family. The missionaries told me that since my husband will not be joining the church and I am a stay at home mom, my tithing responsibility would be zero. However, I am in the job market and will likely be back at work in the next year or so. It is my understanding that once I'm working, I would be tithing based on my own income. I've done the math, and I would be tithed about $350-400 a month based on a $50,000 a year salary. Yikes! That is a car payment--on a *nice* car, and would basically be what I would be paying in after school child care. It wouldn't even make working worth it at that point, and I love my field of work (librarianship) and would not want to lose it. For full-member families, tithing is a given, but for me, it is quite a daunting thought. (Not that I'm planning on buying a car, but I'm just using that to quantify just how much of our budget that would constitute.) My second question is more emotional in nature. Although at this point I am in opposition to Catholic doctrine, I've only ever been Catholic and I'm afraid I would get "homesick." While I am ideologically in line with LDS beliefs, I worry that once I'm a church member I would miss my parish, the music, my old church community, etc. Have any of you converted and had to deal with the emotional aspect of leaving behind a faith tradition? How did you cope? These are such strange, random issues to be blocked by, I know! I'm trying my best to resolve these issues so I can go into a possible baptism with no regrets or second thoughts.

Hi! Im a recent convert, I was baptised in April, I'm also a lady and my husband isn't a member. OK tithing.. Yeah it's a lot, yeah I tithe on my income but it's still alot.. However now I just feel so good when I write my slip and put my cheque in the envelope. I don't even notice the money, it's not mine it's the Lords so he can have it back. Also my husband was fine about tithing as long as it's on my income as he knows how important it is to me. I was also a Catholic (lots of Catholics convert to LDS, It proves the great apostasy / restoration for me, the Catholic Church had some truth, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has it all, and we are drawn to it) anyway... I read a good book when I was converting called Catholic Dawn, Mormon Harvest about two Catholics who converted. It was a brilliant book! I don't miss the Catholic Church at all.. I get much better spiritually fed now. Music wise my favourite him was what a friend we have in Jesus, but I really love some of the Church hymns like put your shoulder to the wheel or The spirit of God, there is sunshine in my soul today, I know that my redeemer lives and obviously Israel Israel God is calling ?

Here's some 2 cents from me - a former Catholic who has a giant devout Catholic family whose friends are mostly Catholic and who comes from a predominantly Catholic country. First on tithing - in a part-member household, if you can't convince your spouse to pay tithing on your own income and you yourself have faith in the law of tithes, you just need to tell this to the bishop during settlement and hand him zero dollars. The decision to give you a temple recommend anyway lies with the bishop and stake presidency but I am fairly confident that this will not cause you to lose any blessings from your covenant to tithe. So, the only issue here would be if you have faith in the law of tithe. So, I'm going to be very blunt here (I don't have any intention to offend - just give you a different way to look at it). When you learned that you're going to be making $50,000 but that your take home pay is only $45,000 after taxes, did it ever come to your mind to say, Yikes! That's is a car payment on a "nice" car and then have angst over whether you should pay your taxes or not? If not, then why not? I'm going to guess that you think that money doesn't belong to you but rather to the government and you're afraid to go to jail so you didn't even think twice about it.... Now think of how easily giving up your money to pay taxes is compared to your angst of paying tithes. The main difference here is that you have historically SEEN the benefits of paying taxes and and you have SEEN people go to jail for not paying it. Everybody does it so you do it. Whereas, you have NOT SEEN the spiritual benefits of paying tithes and you have NOT SEEN what spiritual suffering people have for not paying it so you still feel that it is your money to decide what to do with instead of Christ's money that He decides what to do with. This is where FAITH comes in. A lot of times you get faith promoting stories like - I started paying tithes and I got a promotion at work... or I closed my eyes and paid tithes knowing that we won't have enough to pay our bills and the next day I found lost money... or something like that. Those are okay but it is not enough. FAITH should be built on what you can GIVE to CHRIST and not what you receive from Him. Faith is about not knowing what will come next but you're going to obey the covenant anyway because you LOVE Him. Okay... on being homesick - it's inevitable. There will be things that will separate you from your Catholic friends and family. But, it doesn't have to be a full separation. For example - I was the cantor for the Catholic Church when I got baptized LDS. My baptism was a spur of the moment thing - it was not planned at all. So, there were a few Sundays where I continued to cantor for the Catholic Church until they could find a replacement. Several members of the choir noticed that I didn't line up for the Eucharist so I felt very self-conscious but it was fine. Then, of course, there were the Catholic baptisms, first communions, confirmations, etc. etc. of my nieces and nephews that are always big party events... I attended them all. Then there's Lent and Christmas - very big productions in the Catholic Church. I attended them with my family too. I don't line up for the Eucharist or to kiss the foot of Jesus.. I use that time to pray and ponder. I go through the Stations of the Cross but I do my own reflections not necessarily following the Catholic reflections. It took about 3 years or so before I quit going to the Lent and Christmas events at the Catholic Church. Yes, when I attend mass for those special events (the most recent one was my dad's wake and funeral where they had mass every single day for 9 days and nightly prayers for 31 more days), I still feel that poignant feeling of that grand tradition - that same feeling I get when I visit my home country, some kind of homesickness... it's okay to feel that way but it doesn't detract from my testimony that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the true Church.

Thanks for explaining. You are engaging in unrighteous judgment from a position of clueless ignorance, without any actual information about how said deeds are handled in TR interviews. Here I thought you had polled people and they admitted lying, or something similar. I am aware of a few stories where people have lied to get a recommend. That said, I believe these to be in a tiny, tiny minority. See, I'm one of those guys with some of those deeds in my life. I have indeed, over the years, brought them to the attention of my bishop. On more than one occasion, I've brought them up during a TR interview. Here, let me give you a few clues so you can perhaps mitigate your ignorance: * We're all sinners and fall short of the glory of God. Temple attendance doesn't require perfection - otherwise nobody would be worthy. * With a handful of exceptions, basically the only thing that will keep your leaders from signing your recommend is a lack of repentance. * Bishops work with people who have sinned, and quite often, these people will be encouraged to go to the temple as part of the repentance process. You may wish to consider Proverbs 6: These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Assuming this is accurate (we only hear one side) it does seem that a certain amount of selfishness/self absorption was "inherited"

When we were dating/engaged/first married, he was a gamer in the sense it was a hobby with him. He'd play maybe 5-6 hours per week, liked to talk about the games, had a general interest in them. Then things went downhill and I can't pinpoint what happened to cause a change. So, I have been living with my aunt for a couple of weeks now. We have separate bank accounts so I have all my money. I feel so much better, less stressed, enjoying my kids more. I'm continuing to pray for my husband. He's called a few times, says he misses us, wonders how he'll make rent. His parents, however, are furious with me. They've been worried about his changes too, but now are worried he will become their responsibility. So there's that madness. Just wanted to give an update.

I'm glad you feel that way. I think there are many people here who would like to like you, and a great many people who don't have an opinion one way or the other, but you've been so deep in these polygamy threads that it's hard to imagine what you might be like without them. Please try to accept this advice in that regard, because I really do want you to stay, find some friends, enjoy some positive conversation, and not get lost down the polygamy rabbit hole... You may not feel like you're obsessing about polygamy, but from out here, it really looks like you're obsessing. And the truth is, we (humans) just don't know enough to say what will be in the next life. At this point, we're beating a dead horse. Let's move on to another topic. You yourself have noted your own internal inconsistencies on this topic (night and day, you said). That means that your posts sometimes reflect that inconsistency. It's really difficult to have an understandable conversation without consistency. This is another reason to let go of this one and try a topic where you're able to be consistent. My time here has taught me that the folks here are generally good to be in a discussion with, and @Carborendum is one of the good ones, in fact, most (maybe all) of the people I've seen you react negatively to are among the good ones. So consider that perhaps there's more misunderstanding than previously thought. Consider that what you are taking personally is not meant that way, but rather meant to point out inconsistencies or to simply disagree with the point you made. Disagreeing may always feel personal, but that doesn't mean it was intended that way. Finally, @estradling75 has addressed the differences between this site and some others. That difference is why I'm here and not there. I looked all over when certain controversies started because I wanted to know what people were saying. I found a lot of sites where people claimed to be faithful members of the church, but once you got into the discussions, there was nothing faithful about them. I don't need to listen to people rejecting modern prophets or ignoring the scriptures to know the truth. If I went to those sites, I would read about complaints and about how they know better than prophets. On this site, I learn how others live and apply the Gospel, and understand scripture, and that helps me to learn and grow in positive ways, so yeah, I'm staying here, and don't need there. That doesn't make me close-minded, it makes me judicious in the use of my time. If you feel a need to disagree with church teachings, or explore the possibility that the church is wrong, you probably will be more comfortable among people who will join you in that exploration. OK, really finally, I'd much rather discuss the Pilot Falcon Soft Extra Fine fountain pen and how it compares to writing with a Jinhao x750 with a Zebra G nib. Anyone game?

From what I understand of the discussion, Carb accepts that the proxy ordinances are properly performed between a woman and all her husbands, but does not consider them to be sealings because according to his understanding, only one will be valid in the end. That is, she is only going to be sealed eternally to one husband, however many the proxy work is performed for.

@Catlick I'm not terribly helpful. I'm not a "convert" per se, and I've always paid my tithing. My father told me when I was young (not sure if it was his wisdom or something he heard too?)... he basically said: "Needle, how can the Lord trust us to be good stewards of a lot if we are poor stewards of a little". Meaning if we can't manage to pay tithing when we have a little, why would the Lord bless us with even more. We choose to obey the commandment of tithing in the "circumstances" we currently find ourselves, not in some future hypothetical. Paying tithing is so second nature I don't think of it in terms of what I missed out on, but rather "perfect, I got to pay my tithing". Option A: Keep 90% Income + Additional Blessings or Option B: Keep 100% Income + forfeit associated blessings with tithing We can all "do" and "be" better with the additional blessing vs. 10% that was never really ours to begin with. Yep, I just deposited my 2 cents.

Woulda played better in the south if Trump had immediately followed with a "bless his heart . . .".

tesuji, that is one of my favorite quotes as well! It has definitely helped put things in perspective for me. And the ward members have told me that keeping in touch with my Catholic friends and any social events is fine, and may help ease the process. I just know for sure that the LDS church is true and probably the truest thing I've heard with regard to the meaning of life. Thank you.

Congratulations on getting this far. I was born a Mormon, but I imagine it must be a major decision to join the church. First, I would say keep in remembrance what you have felt from the Holy Ghost. I assume you have felt that in your discussions with missionaries, in church meetings, etc. If not, then seek to have that experience. When you feel that, you know it's true. It might be necessary to just take the leap of faith at this point, trusting in God and the witness you've had from the Spirit that it's true. Regarding tithing, I'm not sure I completely understand the situation with a single-member family. But it sounds like, regardless, you are feeling like you should pay tithing. One thing that might help is not focus on the amount, but that it's only 10% of your income. Personally, I love paying tithing. It's proof to myself that I trust the Lord, that I love him more than money. It's a way of showing gratitude for the other 90% he has blessed me with. I enjoy too the knowledge that it's going to help build up God's kingdom and help other people. Regarding your previous church, I love the following quote by the prophet Gordon Hinckley: If you think of Mormonism as adding more to supplement what truths you have learned in the past, perhaps that will help. Also, I don't know if I'm off base, but I don't know why you couldn't visit your old church when you wanted to, if you miss the experience. It might help to go "cold turkey" at first, until you adjust to being your new Mormon church. Also, I am going to assume that once you feel at home in the Mormon church, you will see a lot of new and good things there, and not miss your old faith so much. I hope my thoughts might help. Best wishes, and God bless you.

Something to bear in mind about the JoD is that it didn't constitute the first publication of many/most of the material contained therein--the Deseret News usually published them first. As I understand it, during compilation of the Brigham Young manual, the Church made a conscious effort to cite as much as possible from the Deseret News rather than the JoD (antis suggest it's because the Church wanted to avoid encouraging use of the JoD; apologists suggest that the Church had a sincere belief that the earliest report would be the most reliable and in best harmony with current historiographical practices). The potential for transcription/scrivener's errors endemic to the JoD, really exist with pretty much any recorded extemporaneous speech from any church leader of the period (ever seen the competing versions of the King Follett discourse)? It's not that we should be more trusting of the sermons recorded in the JoD; it's that we should probably be a little less trusting of the sermons reported via other sources.

I get that assumption from the same place you did--from D&C 132, which provides for polygamy but not for polyandry.

Every ordinance other then Sealing only involves the one person... and only that one person can have an effect on the Eternal outcome because God is ever faithful. The Sealing ordinance has a profound difference in that it takes two people. Each individual has both their God given agency and the promise of all blessings if they personally remain faithful. Given these two factors we have to accept that the mortal actions of the Sealing ordinance is more about potentiality. For the simple fact that we can not be Sealed together with our spouse if our spouse doesn't make it. But our spouse's failure does not rob us of the blessing. So we simply have to accept that there will be some re-arranging of things related to Sealing before things are finalized. So while the records of the church that track the ordinances are important they will not be the final say. The prophets have always taught that obedience was required for Exaltation that has never changed. When God commanded polygamy then that was required for Exaltation and that is what the prophets exhorted us to do with all diligence. Then the God commanded us to stop the practice. If we believe that they are prophets we have to accept that every single on of them would now exhort us to not do polygamy. So now if we try to live polygamy in mortality we get excommunicated. Ordinance wise and record wise men have always been allowed to be Sealed to another partner if they end up with more then one legal and lawful mortal marriage. And the temple will Seal him to all wives of record after he dies. And more recently it started doing the same for all women. We do this to keep all the options open. Now a person looking forward with an eye of faith might see all the ordinance work and an state we are living polygamy now, which is untrue, only the potentially for it in the future is there. Some people spend a lot of time trying to figure out how the Lord will handle the re-arranging that is needed. The simple fact is if you have faith in the Lord then it does not matter. You simply exercise that faith and trust the Lord will make things right, and focus on the parts that you personally need and must do to claim those blessings

If I had to move I would probably look for a place close to some family members. What keeps me here in Utah is my family. My husband and I have thought of moving over the years but we were never able to cut our ties with family.

That would seem to be correct as well. Women can't get sealed to more than one spouse in mortality. However, if doing proxy work for the dead for someone who had multiple marriages, then it makes sense to do the work for all of them and let those in the hereafter ratify that which is correct. It's the same principle as baptisms for the dead, just because we do the work for someone does not mean that they have to accept the ordinance. Agency still applies in the spirit world.The tragedy would be not to perform the work and then they don't have the choice.

I saw this: And thought, "Who's right--the Muslims or the Secularists?" The answer, of course, is YES!

They most certainly do not respect the opinions of other more... try taking the Main Line Church position on any subject... and just see how fast they gang up on you. LDS.net make no bones about being PRO LDS Church and PRO Official LDS Church positions. That mean our audience base is smaller, because there are much more that want to believe whatever they want then actually follow the Lords appointed leaders. With the smaller base it also means the natural ebb and flow of peoples lives is more pronounced in the forum. It is always slower when summer hits and it picks up as the summer goes along (it is quite the display of hubris for you to claim it to be all about you)

**Mod hat on for a moment** Guys, let's settle down. @Zarahemla, normally questions about moderating are best brought up directly with the mods via private message. Since you've raised the question publicly, though, I will note that 1) The "report" function exists because sometimes, we as mods don't catch every problematic post. Our failure to publicly act on a post does not necessarily indicate our approval of said post, so please feel free to use the "report" function as you deem appropriate. 2) While we all want to be sensitive to mental illness (such disorders being far more common, statistically, than most of us are willing to acknowledge); the simple fact is that in a discussion forum it is natural to expect some degree of coherence from each participant. It's one thing to be open-minded enough to change your opinion when presented with additional evidence or sound argument--that, I think, is a major reason discussion forums like this exist. But it's something else entirely to suggest that some sort of disability exempts one's own opinions from the rules of logic and consistency that (should) prevail in an open discussion.

In several other topics, we've seen a melding of the concepts of polygamy, polyandry, polyamory, and the Celestial idea of Plural Marriage. These are not the same things, and speaking about them as if they were only muddies the waters and makes understanding more difficult than it need be. The superset is polygamy: from the Greek, meaning "many joinings", i.e., marriages (whether formalized or not) between or among multiple partners, male or female, same-sex or natural. Completely within "polygamy" are "polyandry" and "polygyny". The former means "many men", the latter, "many women". "Polygamy" also subsumes "polyamory", a portmanteau (mixing of Greek and Latin roots) meaning "many loves", i.e., several men and/or several women who engage in sex with each other promiscuously, including homosex if desired, with the knowledge and consent of all of the others in the "family". "Polygyny" could mean (but I've never seen it used this way) same-sex joinings between/among women. In parallel, "polyandry" could mean (but unattested) the common homosexual practice of having multiple homosexual males partners. In general, however, either means heterosexual marriages (formal or not) with one partner of one sex and multiple partners of the complementary sex. "Plural Marriage" is a subset of "polygyny" (with some "outerlaps", that is, parts that common polygyny does not include). Plural Marriage is not the subject of this topic. Please do not raise it, and only use scriptures (please divorce them from their spiritual basis) to support or undermine the other, legitimate, subjects. An example might be 1 Samuel 1, wherein we meet Hannah and her polygynous husband and see the strife between the wives of Elkanah. The question to be examined here would be "Is polygyny inherently stressful, or can two women share a husband without harming each other?" Finally, while it is a major issue in our time (we're not alone, the ancients did it, too), serial polygamies of whatever sort, don't lend themselves to this topic, either. Divorces and remarriages have little redeeming value, absent brutality. Jesus condemned them, and that's good enough for me. The goal (assuming "goal" isn't too strong a word) of this topic is to examine the plusses and minuses of each arrangement. It would be really nice if participants could keep it scholarly and detached. This is a potentially contentious topic, deeply imbued with emotion. That's not the point. Lehi

My favorite miracle in the scriptures is the Savior calming the Sea of Galilee. The account in Mark 4 is the most detailed: It is such a great story because it truly shows the peaceful reverent demeanor of Christ. One of the reasons I love it is because of the great hymn, Master the Tempest is Raging. Another is there have been a number of beautiful paintings (from Rembrandt, LDS artists and others) referencing the event. I’ve also viewed as an analogy in my own life that when I am in rough seas, there is always one I can rely on to calm them. What is your favorite miracle in the scriptures?

It doesn't hurt to tell you Mormon bishop your interest. He might even let you help before you're baptized.

It is tax deductible...

As you discuss tithing with your husband keep in mind that harmony in the home is of the utmost importance. If he is against the idea I would not push it or pressure him.

Tesuji, are you familiar with The General Conference Odyssey? It's a group undertaking by a series of faithful LDS blogs.

I wouldn't phrase it as blood/genes "carrying spirituality"; but our whole obsession about being Abraham's seed and members of the House of Israel (an obsession that dominates the parent-child sealing ceremony itself) suggests that there does indeed need to be a specific chain of inheritance--whether by birth*, or by adoption. *There's also this notion of "believing blood" that occasionally pops up in LDS discourse, even relatively recently. But as I understand the concept, "believing blood" just makes a person a little more likely to accept the gospel in the first place; and once you've been baptized there's no real difference as to whether your Abrahamic ancestry comes via blood or via adoption.

Cite names... Name the ones that signed off and then continued. It is easy to say that they "All signed" off with out knowing who they are.. It is easy to "assume" those that continued signed off... But with out names it is simple speculation that they over lapped... But lets assume that a few did anyway... how does that negate the answer? It is so easy to imagine one (or some) of them thinking that the statement they signed off on was a PR stunt with strong terms to get the government off their backs. And that the church would continue business as usual

I found this little nugget, and granted I was not alive then, nor aware of the political climate in the church. It seems that they certainly didn't take the 1890 manifesto seriously though: Marriages and Sealings Performed Outside the Temple, 1853–1857, 1873–1903, Church History Library, Salt Lake City. The ledger does not record plural and monogamous marriages known to have been performed by Anthony W. Ivins, Matthias F. Cowley, and Abraham O. Woodruff during the 1890s and early 1900s. In all, 8 of 19 members of the Quorum of the Twelve who served between 1890 and 1904 married new plural wives during those years, and these marriages are not represented on the ledger. These members include Brigham Young Jr., George Teasdale, John W. Taylor, Abraham H. Cannon, Marriner W. Merrill, Matthias F. Cowley, Abraham Owen Woodruff, and Rudger Clawson. It is alleged that President Wilford Woodruff married an additional plural wife in 1897, but the historical record makes this unclear (see Thomas G. Alexander, Things in Heaven and Earth: The Life and Times of Wilford Woodruff, a Mormon Prophet [Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1991], 326–28). For those who are wondering this is from the footnotes from this website: https://www.lds.org/topics/the-manifesto-and-the-end-of-plural-marriage?lang=eng

I lived for several years in the Netherlands and attended a Dutch Ward. The Frankfurt temple was my temple growing up. I never had any issues with any members and we were actually really tight. I spent years with translation head phones on during Sacrament meetings. A Dutch brother would sit in a sound booth each week and would translate for everyone with head phones on. We did Temple trips, YM & YW activities, Ward dinners, etc. I meet my wife there too. I do remember many testimonies about forgiveness as Dutch members still struggled with the effects of World War II. I always enjoy this video about the Dutch and German members.

I have actually no words whatsoever... this is pretty deranged and sad... Well, I guess such people stand out as a warning what happens if you delete your brain with hipster coffee and overdose on liberal ideas with a pinch of political correctness and entitlement.

I couldn't even bring myself to click the link (totes normal), only happy thoughts today, but I did like the comment you posted.

Maybe but parents can be weird and who knows what story the husband is spinning to his mom and dad.

Thread closed. Guys back to your corner.

The other thing about Portland is that I don't think it's very affordable. I haven't been there for many years though. I went to high school in the suburb of Beaverton and really liked it then.

LOL. There was actually a skit about this on the show Portlandia, in the first season

Looks like

Well Portland is quite the place as the city is web friendly ( big computer corporations have their seat there as well) and the city is quite innovative and advanced.

About five miles south. Maybe it's because I'm a convert, but I've never understood the LDS fascination with packing up and moving halfway across the country multiple times. This ain't the Plain of Shinar, and "leave his father and mother" can be accomplished by moving out of view of their house.

It is not mockery and I'm not certain which part led you to think it was. And yet, rather than doing charity and arguing your cause through that example, you are actively debating and arguing your cause through text on this thread. So there's some distinction that your actions are drawing between engaging in apologetics on the meta topic of defending the faith (where it seems you think it's okay) and engaging in apologetics to actually defend the faith (where you don't think it should be engaged). So I ask again, where are you drawing the line? Or are you even aware of this distinction I'm seeing? Let's leave the national stereotypes out of it. Is this where the confusion is coming from? I haven't called you anything. I gave a name to the philosophy or practice you espouse to draw attention to the fact that you don't actually live that philosophy, but rather you live the philosophy or practice that you seem to dislike so much.

And people who cut and paste from anti-sites to this site (which you very much did) should expect a hostile response in return. People who scatter shot their complaints piling on one after the other while apparently not really listening (or only token responding) should realize that they will quickly wear out the good will of the people trying to help them. Now you state you a mental illness... So be it. But that does not give your behavior a free pass. Don't try to hide from the logical and natural responses to your actions by claiming the other person is a bully.

That is part of your problem The scriptures (and the church teach us) that the way the Lord set up for us to gain knowledge is to feast upon the Word of God and to pray always. It would seem from all your posting here you seem to be showing a clear neglect to the path that God has given us. You understanding of scriptures and gospel principles that you have shown on this forum show that you have not spent the time pondering, reflecting, or serious study of the scriptures. You appear to have at best a soundbite level of understanding of the scriptures and the gospel which is why you get blown to and fro by everything... and your "itching ears" lead you to partake of the fruit of some very bitter trees. Humble yourself... until you are willing learn things the way the Lord and setup and instructed us to

My personal hope is that the world will end. Quickly. I suspect I'll be disappointed.

Anatess...On this one I was mimicking the liberal press, and citing their exaggerated take on this story. You are more generous towards Trump than I am, but we both (probably all) agree that Trump will treat the military in general, and vets in particular, with far greater respect that HRC. I suspect the military vote will continue to weigh heavily to the right this year.

That feeling when you realize the only person left with an active complaint against them is you.

I've often wondered what "having a chance and rejecting" the gospel means. Clearly, if LDS missionaries knock on your door, you answer and say no you're not interested, I wouldn't consider that an opportunity. I would expect an element of the Holy Ghost/Spirit of Christ strongly testifying of truth is an element that needs to be present before it would be considered an official chance. Also if we consider that forgiveness is an eternal part of the plan, then I would expect that one could be forgiven of not accepting the gospel and be given more than a single chance.

A quote that came to mind from Pres. Hinkley: "“I pity the man who at one time looked into the eyes of a beautiful young woman and held her hand across the altar in the house of the Lord as they made sacred and everlasting promises one to another, but who, lacking in self-discipline, fails to cultivate his better nature, sinks to coarseness and evil, and destroys the relationship which the Lord has provided for him” (“Walking in the Light of the Lord,” Ensign, Nov. 1998, 99).

I have no desire to impose my faith tradition's standards on an LDS audience. However, it might be helpful just to know how other faith communities handle marriage struggles. Most of our spiritual leaders would almost never counsel divorce. We would permit it in cases of unfaithfulness. When there is physical abuse we might counsel safety first, then separation. In this case, if the husband is refusing to provide for his family and is refusing counseling, it might come to the place where we would condone a separation. However, at least from some of the postings here, we would be much more cautious about saying the marriage is over. There has been no unfaithfulness, no cheating. And no, "gaming" doesn't count as a mistress. So, we would want to hold out hope that the husband would come to his senses, realize his responsibilities, and return his devotion to his one-flesh love. Offering counsel by post is always precarious. However, I am concerned that the OP "checked out of the marriage long ago." Even though the husband appears to have started this difficult dilemma, withdrawing from the fight for love, rather than engaging in the battle for the marriage, while understandable, would seem to turn the situation into one in which both parties will have work to do, if salvaging the relationship is possible.

I did that. Yes, I did. Everybody told me I was an idiot. (I was also dealing with post-partum depression at the time and my husband was using the video game to "zone out of life" after the responsibilities overwhelmed him). My husband did not leave. But he did quit the games and started facing life again. When we talk about the incident now, we both acknowledge there was a better way to have dealt with that problem but that my smashing his video games was the fastest reality check and that ripping that band-aid was, over-all, a good idea for everyone. But yes, I was lucky that we both are of the same belief that divorce is not an option.